Perl/Build.PL VsMakefile.PL

Snipped from BZ#205309:

Comment #3 From Jose Pedro Oliveira (jpo@di.uminho.pt) 	on 2006-09-06 17:47 EST

A couple of notes about "Makefile.PL vs Build.PL" or "ExtUtils::MakeMaker vs
Module::Build"

1. If a perl distro includes both the Build.PL and the Makefile.PL file, there
are good chances that the Makefile.PL has been generated from the Build.PL
file.  In these cases is better to package the module using Build.PL (BR:
perl(Module::Build).  Note: in the past the generated Makefile.PL not always
installed correctly.

2. In the past the documentation of Module::Build stated that Module::Build
*would* replace ExtUtils::MakeMaker.  This now has been corrected (see the
Module::Build changelog) and both installation methods will be supported.

3. In the past the Michael G Schwern's presentation "MakeMaker Is DOOMED! or
MakeMaker is dead! Long live Module::Build!" also caused some confusion.
(http://schwern.org/~schwern/talks/MakeMaker_Is_DOOMED/slides/slide001.html)
Michael Schwern was at the time the perl test guy and the maintainer of
ExtUtils::MakeMaker.

4. Module::Build is a perl core module since perl 5.9.4. Perl 5.10 will
supported Makefile.PL and Build.PL natively.  Right now Module::Build must
be installed from CPAN or from a package repository.  Module::Build is
rather important as it doesn't require external utilities such as make (and
its flavours) which is a must if you must support lot of platforms (UNIX,
VMS, Win32, ...)


jpo